Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:37:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <v3q7pb$122u1$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kjs9$3u7ng$1@dont-email.me> <v3l16f$5d3$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3mj84$bq2d$1@dont-email.me> <v3njiv$gatu$9@dont-email.me>
 <v3og5t$328ec$9@i2pn2.org> <v3oh4q$pi6u$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3ohim$jthg$3@dont-email.me> <v3ohql$pi6u$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3q5pt$q84p$2@dont-email.me> <v3q63u$122u1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3q7an$q84q$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 19:37:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dbcb5a2e000d59c1dda264f94a647a93";
	logging-data="1117121"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Y+CQBpol5UEu+fh3ePm9y"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jMeGF/bddajoWfkpxeNAInL1xxs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3q7an$q84q$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4105

On 6/5/2024 12:29 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5/06/24 19:09, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/5/2024 12:03 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>> On 5/06/24 04:16, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2024 9:12 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>>>> On 5/06/24 04:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> But the question it asks is an OBJECTIVE question that doesn't 
>>>>>>> depend on who it is asked of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When H is asked about the behavior of a Machine that is programmed
>>>>>> to do the opposite of whatever it says then the context that it is H
>>>>>> that is being asked is an inherent aspect of the meaning of this
>>>>>> question and cannot be correctly ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every machine does something. It either halts, or it doesn't. If a 
>>>>> machine halts, then it halts even if you ask someone different. If 
>>>>> the machine halts when I ask Bob whether it halts and he says it 
>>>>> halts, then it still halts when I ask Alice whether it halts and 
>>>>> she says it doesn't halt. Alice is wrong. The linguistic context 
>>>>> doesn't change the fact that it halts.
>>>>
>>>> Professor Hehner proves my same point with Carol's question.
>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Richard found a loophole that I fixed and told professor Hehner about:
>>>> Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not "Can Carol" - it's "Does Carol"
>>
>> *Disagreeing with verified facts does not count as any rebuttal*
>> I inserted "(yes/no)" to close the loophole that Richard found.
>>
>> (6) Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this question?
>> Let's ask Carol. If she says “yes”, she's saying that “no” is the
>> correct answer for her, so “yes” is incorrect. If she says “no”, she's
>> saying that she cannot correctly answer “no”, which is her answer. We
>> are assuming for this and all subsequent questions that the only
>> acceptable answers are “yes” and “no”, and in this case, both answers
>> are incorrect. Carol cannot answer the question correctly. Now let's ask
>> Dave. He says “no”, and he is correct because Carol cannot correctly
>> answer “no”. So (6) is subjective because it is a consistent,
>> satisfiable specification for some agent (anyone other than Carol), and
>> an inconsistent, unsatisfiable specification for some agent (Carol).
>>
> 
> 
> It's not "Can Carol" - it's "Does Carol"
> 

Good bye Liar, now that I know who you are.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer